Treaty Still Needed, With ABM Research

Bruce Herschensohn’s June 18 commentary, “History Hasn’t Stood Still for ABM Treaty,” makes at least four dubious assertions against the ABM treaty: First, that we are not bound by treaties with a Soviet Union that has ceased to exist. Wrong. Both Moscow and Washington acknowledge that Russia is the successor state bound by the ABM treaty as well as many other important treaties.

Second, Boris Yeltsin confirmed that the USSR cheated. Using Herschensohn’s logic, what difference would it make today, since the Soviet Union no longer exists? It only makes a difference if we hold a more responsible Russia accountable by enforcing treaty compliance, which we can achieve in the current, more trusting political environment.

Third, ballistic missiles have proliferated. True. But ICBMs capable of reaching the United States have not. Like the Clinton administration, the Bush team, finally, has turned to diplomacy to halt North Korea’s program. Besides Russia, only China poses a threat. With or without the ABM treaty, Beijing is likely to modernize its force. Washington’s withdrawal from the ABM treaty may stimulate China to deploy more missiles than it otherwise would.

Fourth, the ABM treaty prevents the U.S. from defending itself. This would be true if we had the capability to do so. But we don’t today and won’t for many years to come. It does us no good to deploy a ballistic missile defense system that does not work. Witness the failure of our Patriot missiles to defeat Iraqi Scuds during the 1991 Gulf War.

Clearly the U.S. should continue a robust ABM research and development program, but going forth with a costly ballistic missile Maginot Line makes no sense at all.

Bennett Ramberg

Los Angeles

*

Even if Herschensohn’s premise is true that a missile defense program is necessary and could work--which in and of itself is a highly debatable position, considering the money spent so far with no tangible results--all we would be left with is a Maginot Line in space. An opponent with the intention of delivering nuclear or biological weapons to our country could easily outflank this missile defense by going around it, under it or by just Fed-Exing its attack to us.

Michael LaNoue

Whittier